Organizational Resilience Strategies for Adapting to Change
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•302 views
Organizational resilience refers to an organization's ability to anticipate, respond to, and adapt to incremental and sudden changes in order to survive and prosper. It is conceptualized as both continuity during disruption as well as adaptability to change. Creating organizational resilience involves developing a culture of resilience through strategic workforce management, risk management, and leadership during disruptive events. It is a capability that organizations can develop through emergency planning, contingency planning, and adapting business as usual operations.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Organizational Resilience Strategies for Adapting to Change
Similar to Organizational Resilience Strategies for Adapting to Change (20)
Organizational Resilience Strategies for Adapting to Change
- 1. Organisational Resilience From ideas to your practice Dr Robert MacFarlane Aaron Gracey
- 2. A lack of resilience can hurt. A great deal
- 3. What do we mean when we talk about Resilience? FROM Persistence through disruption, damage or change Rooted in an physical sciences view of the world Business continuity “Bouncebackability”
- 4. What do we mean when we talk about Resilience? FROM TO Persistence through disruption, damage or change Rooted in an physical sciences view of the world Business continuity “Bouncebackability” Successful entities deal with and adapt to change Resilience as continuity and adaptability “Bounceforward”
- 5. ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: the capability of an organization to anticipate, and respond and adapt to, incremental change and sudden disruptions in order to survive and prosper
- 6. • An idea? • An aspiration? • A strategy? • An activity? • A capability? • A quality? • An absolute state? Organisational Resilience is...
- 8. Conceptual Model • Society • Political Environment • Competition • Strategic Workforce Management • People Development • Training • Technology • Business Policies and Standards • Risk Management • Resource Management • Economic Awareness • Strategic Leadership • Disruptive Event Management • Business Continuity • Disaster Recovery
- 9. Culture: effect on resilience
- 11. • Openness • Conscientious • Extrovertness • Adaptability • Neuroticism Personality traits that drive culture
- 12. Creating a cycle of resilience Emergency planning Contingency planning Contingency implementation Disruptive event management BAU
- 13. Thank you Dr Robert MacFarlane Aaron Gracey
Editor's Notes
- Reason for the two apples: Both symbolise something that looks familiar, but in a different shape. The red is that of industry and the commercial world, building resilience through adaptive leadership and proactive management. Underpinning this is the command of the relevant organisation which is obtained through knowledge, leadership and understanding. In the background sits the armed forces for two reasons: In times of crisis they are the backstop for the UK Government to rely on, with the last 14 years littered with examples of Foot & Mouth, Fire Strikes, Fuel Strikes, enhancing shipping protection, 7/7 and the Olympics to identify but a few. The second reason is that are designed to be self sufficent for 30 days if deployed in Brigade size during operations. Their staff are developed to create resilient structures and their leadership focuses on being comfortable operating in a environment of uncertainty. There are lessons that we can learn from them to develop our capability.
- This model has been based upon a UK Government proposed model from 2004, which in 2006 was rolled out as a means of trying to establish an effective counter insurgency model by building resilience within a failed or failing state. Unfortunately, through poor leadership, lack of direction and minimal training, cross departmental education and communication, it resulted in the failure of the Iraq campaign and the poor performance in Afghanistan. By reviewing work from Res Orgs, Amy Stephenson and Charlotte Newnham, who you will here from later, I have developed the model for an industry domain. This model seeks to identify the key structures on developing organisational resilience. To the right are those that are created by the senior leadership team: Business vision, the culture and the type of leadership. Wrapping around these three key elements of the organisation are the 11 crucial areas within a business that affect the capability of it to survive a major disruptive event. A number of us are aware of the importance of physical capabilities such as disruptive event management, disaster recovery procedures, risk management and BCM. What a number of companies are not so educated or aware of are the importance of the governance, workforce development or the policies, strategies and standards. These are more of the softer areas, yet it is these that create the culture of the organisation which sits at the very centre of every strand, and the organisation itself.
- This diagram highlights the business space that an organisation operates within. Competitive and commercial success relies on these three domains being aligned. The ability to create a properly focused strategy, mapped to a correctly aligned organisational structure which encompasses the cultural influence of the industry. These need to be aligned as a failure to understand the culture will result in the destruction of the strategy and the collapse or severe damage of the organisational structure. In essence, Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
- By looking at the importance of the effect of culture on an organisation, one only needs to look at how it all comes together. Within the business space, the organisation has a certain culture, and possible sub-cultures, based on its history, sector and stakeholders. This organisational climate also impacts on how the staff and the health of the organisation sit in relation to the business vision. To obtain the best from the workforce, the organisation should seek to utilise governance, adaptive leadership and proactive management to build non-financial incentives. Many companies seek to employ lean practices and procedures, stripping out extra staff, technology or services. Training, education and professional development are normally the first to go in a bid to save funds. Research has identified two recent examples of this: the British Military and elements of the Railway Industry, both who have focussed on forced redundancies, reduction in CPD and education and the cutting back of available workforce training events. These approaches have badly damaged the psychological contract between the organisation and the staff. The failure of an organisation to provide a non financial commitment to an individual or a workforce impacts on the psychological contract, which in turn forces a behavioural consequence. This may manifest itself in staff only working their contracted hours, which, when in a crisis, is not what an organisation needs. It may also result in an increase in grievances, long term sick, drop in recruitment, brand damage and industrial action. This is were there needs to be a strong understanding of the link between the cultural climate, organisational values, governance, incentives and behavioural frameworks. These are normally in the domain of the senior leadership to set and direct, but the middle management to own. This is where the armed forces do show strong understanding, having a strong competence framework, embedded culture, values and organisational beliefs. Their staff are also trained to think one or two levels above their normal operating levels, creating flexibility and business agility, as well and being comfortable operating in an uncertain environment.
- The type of culture that an organisation creates is affected by the personalities within its staff, throughout the organisation. Research has shown that there are five key personality traits that individuals will display which, when mixed throughout an organisation can create a dynamic, flexible and robust entity. Talk briefly about each of the five key traits:
- Taking into consideration all the elements that are pulled together to create or affect the development of organisational resilience, I have sought to try and place them in relation to each other and how they may affect the development of an organisation’s response. Any item to the left of the incident is a proactive approach, anything to the right is a reactive approach. For example, a post incident review will look at how the organisation reacted and dealt with an incident, what the impact was and how has it forced a recovery. If it is business continuity, there is an element that is linked to the risk awareness / management (BIA), but the majority of BC is post incident, when it helps drive the recovery phase through contingency planning to mitigate the impact of the disruptive event. These options are driven by understanding the risk appetite and environment, the level of staff capability and knowledge and regular exercise, either physical or conceptual. Likewise, the understanding of the future risk through horizon scanning can help tailor the education, training and development of staff capability frameworks. It can also highlight key risk elements. However this in itself carries a risk. Many organisations still assess risk on the high probability / high impact matrix, concentrating on those that score high. They tend to ignore those that score high on impact but low on probability. On that however, consider these examples: What was the risk on an unsinkable modern ship striking a large obstacle and sinking with a substantial loss of life (Titanic, Costa Concordia)? What was the risk of a Sea Inundation striking the UK along with a 1 in 100 year storm, while the Jet stream moved North causing sustained storm surges, resulting in a collapsed sea wall and a loss of approx £1.2bn of the UK SW economy? It is these risks that do the most damage, the Complex / Wicked problems, or as they are known, the Black Swan events. We can prepare for the High risk High Impact, we tend to ignore the High impact low risk. What this model is indicating is that there is a need to create a double loop learning approach, through the initial review to identify the lessons of the disruptive event, but then to feed those lessons right to the very beginning of the cycle, to create a far more flexible and agile business. This is successful only if a strategic approach is taken through HR and the development of a proactive open career management model supported by an adaptive leadership model as well as a capability and culture framework.